Gun hidden inside camera?

We have discussed many theories regarding the shooters in Dealey Plaza. Behind the knoll, the badgeman, The black dog man, inside storm drains, the umbrella man shooting darts etc. However I sometimes wonder if a gunman was shooting with a gun concealed inside a photo/tv camera possibly standing on the pavement. I don't even know if such a technology was existing that time.

I did not know about that Gordon. The only relevevant situation that i am aware of is Venciana's revelation that they were planning to assassinate Castro in Chile in 1971

and that the assassins had the guns hidden inside cameras. He did not explain if the guns were just hidden inside the cameras to be taken out athe rigth moment or if they were made a compact mechanism to fire from the camera. It would have been clever though to have an assassin posing as a cameraman on the pavement while everyone was distracted by shots from the rear and maybe a diversion shot behind the knoll. Such a photographer/cameraman would have a close and clear view of JFK's head.

Vasilas, although open to any plausible explanation, I struggle with the exotic weapon theories. The umbrella flechette for example, whilst perfectly plausible, suffers from the simple problems of aim and accuracy. Despite assurances from Fletcher Prouty and others as to its deadliness I just don't buy into it.

In the case of the camera it is indeed an intriguing idea. Of course, for it to be the case, we most likely already know the guilty party, and their cover has gone completely undetected for half a century. It is for that reason I don't buy that one either, though it's a fair bet if the weapon didn't exist at that time, the concept, possibly under development most likely did.

Despite assurances from Fletcher Prouty and others as to its deadliness I just don't buy into it.

You don't buy into what exactly? Are you claiming that Fletcher lied? Was mistaken? Why? Upon what basis should I believe you over that of my good friend, Fletcher Prouty, who was actually THERE? Do you doubt that it 1) was deadly? 2) was accurate? 3) was used in Dealey Plaza? 4) all of the above? The difference between you and Fletcher is that he was there, witnessed these so-called exotic weapons first hand, and is therefore in a position to know their effectiveness. Hell, the Agency had to pitch the idea of completing its development to HIM in order to obtain funding through the DOD. That was part of Fletch's job as Chief of Special Operations and Liaison Officer between the CIA and the DOD. Because of excessive costs, many of CIA's "projects" were necessarily funded through the DOD and the individual that had to first be "sold" on the idea before it could even get a hearing for that funding was Colonel L Fletcher Prouty. Why should I put any stock in what you buy or don't buy, Brian? My source was gold.

I have similar concerns about those who would like to tell me JFK's Secret Service Detail followed proper protocols that day when those persons have had NO EXPERIENCE in either Executive Protection or in standard Police Motorcycle Escort work in support of Special Protection.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/Greg BurnhamAdmin

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep." -- Farewell America (1968)

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence." -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise." -- Unknown

Greg, read carefully. By saying "despite assurances by Fletcher Prouty" I am saying "despite endorsement from a very trusted source". Note, this proviso followed my statement that I believed that the weapon would have (in my view of course, seeing as it was I who said it) "problems of aim and accuracy".

So, put more precisely....

Despite the endorsement of no less a figure than L. Fletcher Prouty, a person I hold in high esteem for his contribution to the cause of truth in the JFK assassination, I personally am skeptical that in Dealey Plaza on the 22nd November 1963 a weapon, described in detail by Mr.Prouty as being both deadly and accurate, was used. That is not to say it was not possible, or that it did not happen. It is however a scenario that I, Brian Kelshaw, of no particular standing or qualification, but nevertheless a reasonably intelligent person, do not happen to buy into. This conclusion in no way reflects upon the integrity, or standing of the late Mr.Prouty, nor was it in any way my intention that it would. I do however reserve the right of independent thought, which I hereby exercise.

Gordon, just because an umbrella based weapon existed in 1963, and just because Prouty attested to their deadliness doesn't mean by default it was present, and used in Dealey Plaza. Neither are proof, merely speculation. As such therefore, as I explained earlier, my independent judgment, based upon the known facts is one of doubt. What is wrong with my having reached a perfectly justifiable conclusion given the paucity of evidence in favour of the exotic weapon's use on that particular occasion?